Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-04-07
HIS TWO OPINIONS.
JUDGE BcRD DECIDES THE RoYALL
AND STUMP CASES.


In the Latter the state Of Virgins Wine
In the Former IL Loses,
&C., &c., &c.
In the United States Circuit Court
yesterday Judge Bond decided the case
of w. L. Royall, who was fined 500
for intimidating grand jurors of the
Hastings Court, and who, refusing to
pay the fine, was sent to Jail, whence
he sued out writ of habeas corpus,
was brought before Judge Bond, and,
after hearing and pending decision,
vas committed to the custody OF the
United States marshal.
In this case Judge Bond said:
Al the hearing Of this case some confusion
arose respecting allegations In the petition Tor
the writ Of hGbsds corpus. which ellegations
were travcrsed or demufred 10 by the Attorney
General, who appeared for the CommonWeaitn,
and other allegations OF the return OF the writ,
which were thought by the cocnsel OF peti-
iioncr not 10 lie responsive 10 the petit
tion or pertinent 70 the issues 70 be tried.
/ have concluded TO exclude from considera-
tion st this time all such matters, because
do not think TO determine their truthfuiness or
falsiiy would aid at al In finding correct
judgment In tho case before the court The
question before me IL q simple one, and Is
whether or not William l. koyal " Legally
held In custody by tho Sergeant Of me city OF
Richmond. who here produces him IN obedience
70 the wit Of habeds corpus. and who claims to
| hold him IN custody by virtue OF writ OF COM
mitment from The Hastings Court Of that city,
| whore he was tried and convicted upon an IN
formation filed BY ;. y Wit, attorney Tor mo
The record Of the proceedings In the Hus-
| ;ings Court has been produced, and for the
purposes OF this hearing shall connne my
self 10 the facts which are set forth In that re-
cord The Information filed by the Attorney
| for the Commonwealth Is in tho following
words: Here follows the full text OF the in-
| formation which has been repeatedly pub
| lished In theso columns, and Is simply In ensc;
that MIR. William L. Royal had endeavored 20
| intimidate the grind Jury OF tho Husting Court
| by suing them for damages for indtcting him
/ for the Ofierce OF barratry.l
To this reformation the defendant Royal
| filed several pleas, which we're overruled by
4 the Court. and also made motion 10 dismiss
| for the want Of jurisdiction, which motion was
refused. Then, upon an agreed sts.eme0t OF
| facts the cBse was submitted to Jury. This
| Jury returned q verdict OF guilty, and. as was
| It's proyinss 10 do. assessed the defendant Roy
|
| fendant refused 20 pay. ard was. therefore,
| committed 10 Jail until he should comply with
| the sentepce OF this court. This agreed stnte-
| ment II facts Is re follows:
Hvstfnos Court. CITY cf RiehmOnd-ComB,oH-
| tcfalth Of girgifsia 20. HHhdDt 4. Roydik-Ol
an fnforhiaiiCp for attempting 10 iRtimidate the
grand jurors u tis court.
Its agreed between tho Commonwealth and
| the defendant that this cause shall be submit
ted TO the Jury upon the following agreed state
ment Of facts:
The grand Jury Of this court for its January
term, 1851 within tile Jurisdiction OF this court,
| composed Of Thomas Potts. James II. Hard
| grove, Henry Bruentng. Joseph z. Dickerson.
John II. Smith, and V. A. Favier, found an In
dictInent against William l. Royal, the de-
| fendant. for tarratry, under tho provisions OF
| the act OF the General Assembly approved
March ]. 1850 entitled an ACT 70 define and pun
| ish bnrrR,Fy, and they returned the same into
| court, who're IL wassecorded.
The act of barTatry with which the defeni J.
ant was charged grew out OF the following state
| of facts
| One ID. Dyson, a resident OF and tax payer Ia
| tho city OF Petersburg, Va, rendered TO the
| treasurer Of said city, who is Il. w. Couch, in
payment II Lis taxes due 10 the State OF vir.
| einia for tue year 1Sso. coupons cut from bonds
| Issued by Tho state OF Virginia under the pro-
| visions Of the act OF her Assembly approved
March 20. Is1l, which coupons bore upon them
tho contract OF tho State OF Virginia that they
should be received in payment Of all taxes due
10 her. and the same were overdue and
| past maturity. The same we're refused, and the
| said 4. w. Couch, treasurer as Aforesaid, act
| ing under instructions 20 that effect from Nor
ton Marye. Auditor OF Virginia; Frank q.
| Ruffin. Second Auditor thereof; A.sW. Har-
| man, Treasurer thereof; III. w. tloufhoy, Sec
retary thereof: and X. A. Ayers, Attorney
| General thereof, levied on and seized and sold
| the property OF said Dyson 10 compel payment
| Of said taxes Ia another medium. The defend
| ant, William L. Royal, Is an attorney al
law, duly licensed and qualified 10 practice
| law in the courts OF this commonwealth, aud
| also In the Circuit Court OF the United State.
for the Eastern district Of Virginia AS attor
| ney for said Dyson the defendant, Royal
| brought a aul5 In the United States Cin.u
| Court for the Eastern district OF Virginia In
| ngainst the snid h. W. Couch. Morton Marye
| f. g. Rufin. \. W. Harman, II. ". Flolrnoy.
and II. 4. Ayo,s, which resulted In verdict
| and JUDGMENT for the plaintiff.
The grn1d Jury OF this Hastings Court OF the
| city Of Rchmond. composed Of the persons
abose named as the grand jury, At the term
| thereof lr January. 1851. found said in
| dicimeni against said Royal for barratry be-
cause he bf on ght said suit In the United States
Circuit cunt Tor the Eesorn District Of Virginia
| for said dyson. The said defendant, Royal,
| therefore brought an action for dema9es In the
| United States Circuit Court for the East
! ern district Of Virginia against Thomas
| Tottn. James II. HardYroye, Henry Bruening,
| Joseph G.. pickerHon. John II. smith, and
| WyndLam X. Meredith, special assistant Com
| monwCalth'5 attorney. the persons above
! named who composed the grand Jury for said
! Hustings Court for said January term thereof,
| because they had claiming. TO act as said
gl and fury, found said indictment against him,
| and reiuI ned IL into court under said act OF
| Assembly. which act said Royal claimed. In
| bis declar alton In said suit. Is repugnant to
section 10 Of Article !. OF the Constitu-
| non Of the United States, and the said
| Royall thei eafier had conversation with a re-
| por,er OF the Richmond Wig, daily newspa-
| per published in the city OF Richmond, Va,
| which he authorized said reporter to publish
In paid newgpaper, In which he declared his
| Intention 10 sue any other grand jury which
| should indlct himself or any OF his clients un-
| der the provisions Of any act Of the Geaeral
| Assembly Of tho State OF Virginia repug-
| nalt 10 the Constitution OF the United
states. This conversation was published in
| said newspaper on the morning OF February ),
| 1857. "A copyof the declaration In said suit
brought by the said Royal against the said
\ Potts and ctbers is attached hereto, marked
"A.nl The said Royal did not include es de-
| PENDANTS IN sald suit against Thomas Potts and
| Others, either the judge OF the HustiDgs Court.
the Commopwealths attorney, the clerk, the
| sergeant, or any oiher oficer thereof
| ON tie 1th day OF February, 1887. the
| grand fury fer the February term OF said court
| made report 10 the court, which - attached
1 hsreto marked "B,r and on the 9Th day OF
| February. 1sS1. the same grand jury found four
| ddQiiUlul but utlcnlhni
| under said act OF baratry. The Judge OF the
| eaid Hastings Court gave the said act defining
| tarratry in special charge 20 the two grand
| juries for its January and February term, 1881
| Both OF said grand iuries were duly sum
| moned and sworn.
| SAMUEL B. WITT, Com. Atty.
| WILLIAM l.. ROYAL, for himself
| Whatever may be the formal words of the
| information fled In the Hastings Court, Ii mus
be held 10 set forth these agreed facts, and
| these only, as much so "a II that statement
| had commenced with an allegation that Royal
| bad done what Is therein stated, aud had con'
| cluded against the form OF the statute
| What else Is In the information. II there
be anything he Is not held for, aud
| whatever may be the statute OF Nirginih
4 respecting barratry, " these facts con
stitute that offence. then II the facts set out lr
the defendant Royal appear to be nothing
more than the exercise Of his rights as citizeI
| OF the United staieA Il follows that he 10 helt
In violation OF the uws and Constitution OF the
United States. which granted him those right.
and protect him Ia the exercise OF them, anc
that he cannot be fined or Imprisoned Tor tha
exercise 0f them.
IN appears from the statements OF facts tha
Royal, being an attorney at law, admitted u
| practice Ia the courts OF the United states
| brought suit therein for one Dyson against the
treasurer OF Petersburg for trespass, alleging
that. after he had rendered 10 said treasures
| ax.receiyablc coupons for his taxes due. the
treasurer refused TO receive them. levied upon
his property, and sold the sane.
| That Royal had the constitutional right
| bring this action there can be no doubt The
supreme Court of the United states has 30 de
termiped, and has gone 30 Tar "a 10 say ina. I
Jury In such a case may give the plalnIin ex
emplsry damages.
For bringing this suit Royal was snbseqa aent
Is. indicted by the grand Jury OF the Hnsting
| Cont m Richmond. For Ending this indict